The Case Against the State: Refuting the Proposition of Statism

by Tanner Cook

There is only one thing more challenging to the intellect than trying to convince someone else that they’re wrong, and that is to realize yourself that you are wrong. Tanner Cook’s ‘The Case Against the State’ is a collection of arguments that provide brief but comprehensive rebuttals to the various claims made by skeptics who doubt the possibility of statelessness. Packed with referenced evidence and backed by solid reasoning, this book is designed to wake people up to the reality of our ruling institutions and the structure of our social paradigm. Short, simple, but concise refutations to statist claims are presented to the reader in a timely fashion without getting lost in the rabbit holes of anarchist philosophy or technical economics.

Whether you’re struggling to communicate the arguments for liberty to others or you’re struggling yourself to accept these arguments, ‘The Case Against the State’ provides the answers in the form of cold hard facts and basic reasoning.

129 pages, Paperback

Published July 10, 2019

Reviews

[Krishna]

Will reread this. I still have my doubts on Anarchy despite the dismantling done in this book. My primary doubt being how Anarchic societies will respect one another’s resources. An example which comes to mind is water. If one society is at the riverbanks, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of another society to conquer it?

From the example above, it appears consolidation and violence are inevitable, which means the state is inevitable.

Again, I will have to reread this one.

[BenAbe · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the title suggests, this book is a refutation of the idea that the State is necessary or legitimate. It doesn’t spend much time proposing detailed alternatives on how a stateless society might work, instead it focuses entirely on debunking the assumption that the State is a natural, inevitable, or justified part of life. Cook argues that the State is often not only unnecessary, but in many cases actively harmful.

The book is divided into three main parts:

Part One tackles the foundational idea of the State, how it formed, what it claims as its justification, and the nature of the relationship between those in power and the governed. the author walks us through the common narratives like the “social contract” or the supposed "consent of the governed" and exposes the flaws, contradictions within such reasonings.

Part Two focuses on practical defenses people often give for why we "need" the State. This includes things like the police, courts, national defense, infrastructure, and lawmaking. Cook shows us not only that these services can be provided voluntarily and more effectively in non-coercive ways, but also that State-provided versions are often abusive, inefficient, or corrupt.

Part Three dives deeper into the moral critique, especially around the concept of consent. Cook argues that consent, to be valid, must include the option to not consent. But in the case of the State, there is no such option, you’re given forced “choices” like obey or be punished, pay taxes or go to jail. This makes the very idea of “consent of the governed” meaningless. The State manufactures the illusion of consent through legal complexity, bureaucratic fog, and the machinery of law enforcement—but in truth, no real choice exists.


One concept I find it interesting in the book is the idea of the State as a secular religion. Cook presents the State as a belief system: it justifies itself through ritual, symbolism, and authority claims that only “work” if people believe in them. if one takes away the claims of altruistic grandeur, and doesn't fall under the spell of the political rituals, and takes a step back from the layers of bureaucracy, it becomes unavoidably obvious that the mission statement of the State is, “Your obedience, or your life.”

The book is a short read and mostly enjoyable. I’m giving it 2.5 out of 5 stars, not because the arguments were poorly made, but because I personally remain on the fence about full statelessness. That rating reflects my uncertainty, not a failure of the book’s core ideas. That said, I do think some parts could’ve used deeper elaboration as I found that certain claims were made in passing that deserved more explanation, especially for newcomers (like myself )to these ideas.

[ThoughtCriminal · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short read packed tight with rebuttals to statist mythology!

A great read for the uninitiated as well as those whom already describe themselves as voluntaryists, libertarians & anarchists. Not preachy, not long winded, but a simple, quick and to the point summation of the irrationality of statism with well documented refutations of the statist mythology shoved down our throats every day since childhood. Touches on just about all of the most common statist dogma that I can think of with well grounded and rational support of the idea and of the possibility of a stateless society. Well done!

[Cosmictimetraveler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A cursory glance at many "refutations" of statelessness commonly provided by the bugmen. Good for beginners. I was already familiar with all the concepts, but some of the specific real world data was new - such as pharmaceutical companies killing thousands of people while knowing about the side effects of their medications, or the extent of the government's pollution.